Bilateral Listening Skills ProfileUK National Paediatric Bilateral Audit.

Devyanee Bele11 April 2013

Aims

• Background

• Audit data

• Analysis

• Take home message

Background

• Developed by Ear Foundation

• Questions taken from Infant Toddler Meaningful Auditory Integration Scale (Zimmerman-Philips et al) and paediatric version of Speech Spatial Qualities (Reeder & Firszt 2006)

• Assesses listening skills mostly in adverse listening conditions

Background cont

Audit data0 pre CI 1 yr 2 yr 3 yr

SIM not applicable

√ √ √

SEQ √ √ √ √

Analysis

• Themes extracted after factor analysis

Speech

Quality

Localisation

Analysis

• Comparison of SIM and SEQ group across test intervals

• Comparison of unilateral and bilateral group against ‘time in sound’

n= 308 186 263 81 137 22 32

n= 293 165 244 75 127 19 32

n= 292 171 246 74 130 20 30

12

n= 165 8 75 16 19 37

13

n= 186 8 81 19 22 37

14

n= 171 8 74 18 20 34

Take Home Message

(1) Comparison of SIM vs SEQ across test intervals : no difference between SIM and SEQ group

(2) Comparison of bilaterals vs unilaterals across ‘time in sound’ : bilateral group is significantly better than unilateral group

Parent Outcome Profile questionnaireUK National Paediatric Bilateral

Audit.

Devyanee Bele11 April 2013

Acknowledgement

Robin Gransier, Erasmus student

University of Leuven

Aims

• Background

• Audit data

• Analysis

• Take home message

Background

• Developed by Archbold et al (2002)

• 74 questions and different themes (e.g. communication, process of implantation etc )

• Issues important for parents rather than what professionals feel is important

• High test-retest reliability

Background cont

Audit data0 pre CI 1 yr 2 yr 3 yr

SIM not applicable

√ limited data (<30)

not applicable

SEQ √ √ limited data(<30)

not applicable

Consortium decided to stop use of POP/POP2

in April 2011

POP2- allowed parents to compare outcome of 1CI to

both CIs

Analysis

• Themes extracted after factor analysis

education and social adjustment

communication

family relationships

Analysis cont

• Effect of 2nd CI (i.e. improvement attributed to 2nd CI)

• Relationship between this improvement and the age of implantation for 2nd CI

My child received benefit from the 2nd CI

Strongly agree

Agree

Neither agree nor disagree

Disagree

Strongly disagree

N=115

Relationship of benefit & age at implantation of 2nd CI

Subjects : included seq children who had 1st CI < 5yrs of age

Divided into 3 groups based on age at 2nd CI

1. children who had 2nd CI < 5yrs

2. children had 2nd CI between 5-10 yrs of age

3. children who had 2nd CI between 10-15 yrs of age

My child received benefit from the 2nd CI

Strongly agree

Agree

Neither agree nor disagree

Disagree

Strongly disagree

N 33 68 27

My child received benefit from the 2nd CI

Strongly agree

Agree

Neither agree nor disagree

Disagree

Strongly disagree

N 33 68 27

My child received benefit from the 2nd CI

Strongly agree

Agree

Neither agree nor disagree

Disagree

Strongly disagree

N 33 68 27

Take Home Message• For all themes of POP (communication, family

relationships and education & social adjustment)

(1)Children show significant improvement with two CIs compared to one CI

(2)Children who receive 2nd CI before 5 yrs of age do significantly better compared to children who received 2nd CI at 5-10 yrs and 10-15 yrs of age